↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of ELISA against Widal test for typhoid diagnosis in endemic population of Kathmandu

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of ELISA against Widal test for typhoid diagnosis in endemic population of Kathmandu
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1248-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anurag Adhikari, Ramanuj Rauniyar, Pramod Prasad Raut, Krishna Das Manandhar, Birendra Prasad Gupta

Abstract

Widal test, which has poor predictive outcomes in predominant typhoid population, is not standard enough to predict accurate diagnosis. This study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of Widal test to ELISA using blood culture as gold standard. The blood samples were collected in Capital Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal from febrile patients having ≥48 h fever in 3 years study period for blood culture, Widal test and IgG-IgM ELISA. Amongst 1371 febrile cases, 237 were Salmonella typhi positive to blood culture and 71.4 % typhoid fever patient were of 46-60 years old with male to female ratio of 2:1. Blood culture confirmed patients had ≥1:40 anti-TH and anti-TO titre in 45.56 % (n = 108) and 43.88 % (n = 104) patients respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of IgG (0.96 and 0.95) and IgM (0.95 and 0.94) at 95 % confidence level were significant compared to Widal anti-TH (0.72 and 0.58) and TO (0.80 and 0.51) test (p value, 0.038) at titre level ≥1:200. Further the PPV of Widal TH and TO (0.38 and 0.23) was low compared to IgG and IgM ELISA (0.78 and 0.77) (p value, 0.045). Widal test is not sensitive enough for an endemic setting like Nepal and thus should be either replaced with more accurate test like ELISA or follow an alternative diagnostic methodology.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Master 11 10%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 33 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 37 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2023.
All research outputs
#8,203,527
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,830
of 8,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,040
of 288,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#57
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.